In the McDonald's hot coffee case, the jury initially awarded the plaintiff $ $200,000 in compensatory damages, but the jury also discussed the extent to which the plaintiff was negligent. In the end, the jury decided that the plaintiff was 20% at fault. Which of the following best states the purpose and effect of the jury finding that the plaintiff was 20% at fault. Group of answer choices The jury was doing its job under the state's rules for contributory assumption of negligent risk and, thereby, determined the amount of punitive damages. The jury invoked the state's comparative negligence rules in order to set the punitive damages at $160,000. The jury invoked the common law doctrine of contributory negligence and used it to cut the plaintiff's total damage award to $120,000. The jury used the state's rules for comparative negligence to reduce the plaintiff's compensatory damage award to $160,000. The jury invoked the common law defense to negligence known as contributory negligence and, thus, completely barred the plaintiff's recovery of compensatory damages